Posted
by
samzenpuson Thursday October 21, 2010 @12:32AM
from the we'll-take-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes "English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge, has apparently sent letters to various photo sharing and stock photo sites claiming that any photo of Stonehenge that is being sold violates its rights, and only English Heritage can get commercial benefit from such photos. In fact, they're asking for all money made from such photos, stating: 'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.' As one recipient noted, this seems odd, given that English Heritage has only managed Stonehenge 'for 27 of the monument's 4,500 year old history.'"

Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google [goo.gl] that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.

they also better sue Microsoft for that picture of Stonehenge they distributed with their OS.

On the short term, that would be a win:Two companies known for petty copyright claims are fighting each other in a lawsuit. Both lose money.

On the long term, we lose:At first, more lawyers find work. But then they become unemployed. Unemployed lawyers may start searching for other things to sue (that's what they do, right?). Assuming that people cannot become more stupid, but the rules can become more stupid, it stands to reason that more lawyers means more (stupid) rules.

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

Me, too. Once you preview, you have to click another buttong to fix any typos, and then preview again before posting.

What's worse is that moderation selections take effect immediately. I used to be able to moderate as I read through the comments, and if I really needed to moderate something near the bottom I could go back up and remove the moderation from an earlier comment and then submit them all at the same time.

I think this is all a conspiracy to cover up the strange government experiments that are going on there. For example I see a headless body of a cop and another one apparently still alive but with no legs.

When I visited it, we weren't allowed to go inside the ropes, so no walking through the middle. What annoyed me is that we weren't allowed to walk all the way around it, as the ropes ran into a highway. It was sunset shortly after the winter solstice, and I wanted to see how close the stones came to lining up with the sun.

Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google [goo.gl] that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.

If you want an even more amazing view of Stonehenge, here's a visiting tip that doesn't seem to be that well known - if you plan ahead and fill out this form:http://bit.ly/bYertb [bit.ly]...you can get inside the ropes and get within touching distance of the stones at sunrise. You get the place pretty much to yourself *and* the major road running right by the site is completely empty. It's a genuinely humbling experience and you can get views like this.http://bit.ly/dxPWXE [bit.ly]Yeah, go ahead and write me, English Heritage.(although I still feel bad about the moment I found I was accidentally standing on a halfburied lintel.)

Without fail, every single foreigner I've ever asked about Stonehenge finds it to be extremely uninspiring and a wasted journey / stop. And £14.95 an adult... are ya kidding me? You can get entry to any number of places for that. Hell, Tintagel Castle of something is infinitely more useful, pretty and interesting (and far cheaper) and that's just a pile of crumbling rocks falling into the sea.

Apart from there being virtually nothing at Stonehenge but some generic worn rocks in a vague circle, if you DO get past the barriers, there's much better stone circles elsewhere that are free. The "mystery" of how "they" made it isn't really a mystery for anyone who dabbles in such archaeology, or even that surprising - unusual at best.

One American friend had an organised day trip to Stonehenge from London when they visited (all the British people are now in fits of laughter). How/why I have no idea, but they were rather disappointed to say the least.

It's nice to see once, the best view now completely ruined by silly fences and borders and being from several hundred yards away as you drive down the hill to the East of it. But that's precisely what you do - see it once. I don't know of a single person that's seen it and *deliberately* gone back to stop there again (rather than passing by) - maybe I just don't know enough hippies.

Considering it's on quite a major road that many thousands of people drive down every summer to get to Devon/Cornwall, and that it's only a few hundred yards from said road (on one of the most dangerous turnoffs in the world because everyone is goggling at the stones rather than driving and not noticing the *one* guy miles in front who's stopping to turn to actually go TO them), the number of people you ever see inside the barriers is pretty pitiful. Unless, of course, you're there on the solstice when you REALLY don't want to be using that road at all unless you fancy day-long queues and not being able to get within a mile of the damn thing.

Stonehenge really is the most over-hyped, unimpressive place in Britain that I know. Keep driving, get to Cornwall and go look at dozens of standing stone sites for free (or much cheaper under the National Trust) or, even better, go look at something vaguely interesting like Tintagel, St Michael's Mount, or something vaguely recognisable.

I had a chance to visit the UK a few years ago, and took the train out to Salisbury to see Stonehenge. I enjoyed it, since it is a famous landmark, but what blew me away that day was wandering the cathedral in Salisbury. The medieval clock on display, working since 1200 or whatever, was really cool, at least to me. And there was an original Magna Carta on display, one of the few (four?) surviving copies, fairly legible too. All in all I went out planning to see Stonehenge but wound up pleasantly surprised with unplanned discoveries at the nearby town.

A lot of things that people these days describe as "OMG how did they possibly do that it must be ALIENS!" are really only mysterious because people are shockingly ignorant of the basics of how the world works. Probably comes of sitting on their bums so much.

I went there with my school when I was young and many years ago before EH took over. There was no boundary, and I even ended up sitting on one of the fallen stones (not forbidden in those days). What was more interesting were some of the nearby complexes such as Avebury which had a proper museum.

Step Five: Take it to the logical limit. They didn't make Stonehenge, but they can control the copyright, correct? So, following that logic, if I don't make a song, but I downloaded it and therefore now possess a copy of the song, do I now have say as to the copyright of the song? Because, as the copyright holder, I can't be sued for breaking copyright, right? 'I can't be breaking copyright if I have a copy!' should be a legal defense if this holds up.

While for RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims (copyright law, in various incarnations), it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:

on the photo, because the photo (which is the form of expression of "artistic creation") is not theirs, is the photographer's

on the Stonehenge itself - because:

it is... shall I say?... a building, not at "form of expression"

even if a building would be a "form of expression", it is not theirs (being listed as world heritage [unesco.org])

even if it would be theirs and classified as a "form of artistical expression", the creation act trancedes any current temporal limit for "protection under the copyright law" (that is, unless in UK the copyright protection was extended beyond 5000 years!)

It's not just Stonehenge - the National Trust do it for most of their properties too, but they don't actively police people selling the photos
Apparently as it's their property, any photos taken on their property (if it's taken from public land it's okay) are owned by them under terms and conditions that don't seem to be visible anywhere and by taking photos you're agreeing to them.:(

Stonehenge as we know it is a fairly modern structure, almost completely disconnected from what existed prior to what can only be called an "artistic" reconstruction in the early 1900s. Here [thisisbristol.com] can be found a fairly good summary of the story, which shows that "[Stonehenge] has been created by the heritage industry and is NOT the creation of prehistoric peoples." An online search [tinyurl.com] for "Stonehenge rebuilt" brings up other articles, including (while they last!) photos, showing that commercial interests like English Heritage have a far better claim to Stonehenge than archeology or history.
One more quote summarizes the issue: ""The instigators of the English heritage landscape were essentially amateurs, working by trial and error."

I think what you mean is that the RIAA has a clear legal basis for their actions. And, the answer to that is: not always. They've been caught more than once suing over material for which they do not have the rights. Whether that's due to Incompetence or sleaziness, I couldn't say. The point being that the RIAA is hardly an improvement over this English Heritage outfit.

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.

This is what is, frankly, nonsense.

There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:

One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. This is clearly a stupid rational for something outside, and I would assume almost all photographs of Stonehenge are taken without a flash anyway.

Two is if there are things still copyright. Which is an even stupider reason for this.

I went to the Museum of Modern Art , and could take non-flash photography of all works except, strangely, a single one, because it was on loan and still under copyright. (It was some sort of shark in a case.)

This group might have some legal basis for restricting photography, you can indeed stop people from taking pictures on your 'property', but at that point Stonehenge needs to be taken away from their management and given to someone else. They don't actually 'own' Stonehenge, they're just running the property on behave of the British government, and if they're going to act like this, they should be removed from that.

This is, incidentally, different than restricting someone from using it as a trademark, which the British government could do if they wanted.

They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.

This is what is, frankly, nonsense.

There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:

One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. [...]

Two is if there are things still copyright. [...]

I can imagine another dummy reason a museum can invoke: "don't take photos, I don't want my security setting to be photographed; and good luck trying to avoid it, I took the pain of making it unavoidable".

But, somehow... I don't know why... I can imagine this being invokable for the Stonehenge... not by a rational person anyway.

'We are sending you an email regarding images of Stonehenge in your [website]. Please be aware that any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any commercial interest, all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.'

It appears that from this email even website advertising would be "violating their rights"

Blame the current government (or the previous government for spending all the money, if you prefer).

All NDPBs (non-departmental public bodies / quangos), as well as government departments, have been told to cut costs and find new ways to make money. The one I work for is trying to sell it's scientific data (yet it's also supposed to go on data.gov.uk and be available to the taxpayers who paid for it).

Anyone sufficiently annoyed with English Heritage should write to their MP. I imagine it will fix the issue very quickly.

tourist 1: hmm, they must have been using this wheel to calculate the time of sunrise or something...
tourist 2: indeed, amazing technology they had. I wonder what these numbers show in front of the "main" seat. Must be some kind of a galactic compass!
tourist 1: woah...

If you mean St. Peter's Basilica, since it's in the independent city state of the Vatican, all photography belongs to the Pope (or, possibly, to God). Interestingly, while on the subject of the Vatican and restricted photography, taking photographs of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is stricly forbidden, the rights now being owned by the Japanese company that restored it, but when I was there pretty much everyone ignored the rule (some guy even had a full tripod setup in the middle of the floor with a rem

This sort of crap has the potential to make photographer's lives really annoying. And this comes just as more and more people are active amateur photographers.

The lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted? Museums claim rights over photographic reproductions of century-old paintings? Where do we draw the line?

On the one hand, we have the physical equivalent of contracts: agreements made as a requirement for entrance; this allows zoos, museums, etc. to restrict the use of commercial photography. But photos taken from public streets? From the air?

The fact that these institutions go after commercial users isn't much comfort; the line between non-commercial amateur and commercial-but-still-amateur photography. Have ads up on a blog? Submit your photo to a local art show? Sell your photo to a stock photo site? It's easy for an amateur to make a little cash from the best of their photos.

As a theatrical lighting designer, I dislike people like you. I don't want to copy your design for your last play. Firstly, it doesn't match the play I'm working on (even if it's the same script). If i did use it, it would look like crap and I wouldn't be hired again. Are you afraid of me copying a specific thing you did with a light? Guess what, borrowing little bits from others is how you grow in the arts. It's not just about each little idea, it's also about how you combine them. Think collage. And if you create the iconic version that runs on broadway and that every director asks to be repeated, well fucking awesome. Also, no other lighting designer is ever going to have the same equipment or space again, so even if they do recreate your look, it's less like copying and more like making a crayon version of the Mona Lisa. An homage. So please, get over yourself. This isn't like downloading music, where instead of coming to see your play they're looking at pictures they pirated or they went out and created a perfect working replica. At worst, someone several years down the line will make they're lights look kinda like what they're (crappy) camera remembers them like, only with different equipment in a different space. And people will say "those lights don't work for this production" and they will be out of work. Also, you don't mention copywriting your programming. Which you can. Also you're instructions to the board op and SM. Which, again, are useless unless everything is a perfect match. Which it won't be. Sorry for being so ranty. But worrying about someone copying one of my lighting designs is like worrying about someone copying the way an actor acts. Yes, with enough work someone could do it...but only sorta, and it would v&e meaningless to someone watching, and anyone in the biz making hiring decisions is gonna call them out on it...

I was trying to be funny because i find this ridiculous. The point that was trying to be made was that copyrighting a light display is in every other sense not feasible, and to use it to limit photograph is a gross misinterpretation. I'm very sorry you took that seriously, but I'm very firmly in a camp against copyrighting light displays not only for the reasons you mentioned, but simply because copyrighting it is putting a stifle on a lot creativity, because i and other LDs i know copy each other when they

Apparently this happened to Taipei 101 too. Its public relations section claims any advertisement using the building's iconic image need to pay a fee for it. Post card publisher and different real state agencies were sent legal notices in the past.

I could understand if English Heritage wanted to instate a new policy that required permits for commercial photography. They really want to improve the tourist facilities at the site, and have had trouble getting the money to do so. I think they'd have a very hard time of it, since Stonehenge is clearly visible from public roads and the air. So unless they want to build a giant dome over it, they really couldn't control access.

But trying to retroactively apply that policy to photos taken before the polic

In France for example, you can take the picture of someone on the street, but you're not allowed to publish it. You need to have a signed waiver from the person, or the legal guardian. Even furniture and houses benefit from this.

What it basically means, is that I can't use the picture of a specific house to try and sell the house I'm currently building. It also means that I could get in trouble for putting a picture of myself on Flickr if there happens to be an identifiable stranger in the background. I also can't publish a picture of a (for the sake of example) chest-drawer in the middle of a public street, or sell it, or show it during an art expo and gain material benefits from it, unless the owner of the chest drawer signed a waiver.

However, I can take a picture of a bunch of people who are demonstrating (quite common for the past weeks in France), provided that I'm photographing "a group of people demonstrating", not "a person". Though, when you think about the 18+ megapixel cameras any sufficiently committed amateur photographer can get their hands on, I wonder where the line is drawn. Can I crop?

I'm quite an avid photographer; the UK/Australia/US rules on this were an absolute godsend (rough lines: don't breach the "expectation of privacy" and you're good to go). Well, that was in the days before Stonehenge was built.

"We own the light you collected which was reflected from this object that predates our country by millennia "? I am hoping deep down that they're just kidding and it's just a practical joke on the world. There are so many adjectives applicable to this idiocy, but I am getting sleepy and don't have time to list them.

This seems like an inconceivably broad interpretation of any copyright law I am familiar with, but IANAL so perhaps there are some legal loopholes in UK law that allow this?

I would have thought copyright of a photograph would rest with the photographer (unless it's one of those cases where a building's design is considered copyrighted, but surely Stonehenge is beyond any conceivable copyright claims from the creators...)

I suppose there might be some kind of restrictions due to tricks (nighttime Eiffel tower

The EU actually has a non-idiotic/recommendation/ for this, it's just not binding, i.e. member states don't have to implement it. The EU recommendation is similar to the actual UK legislation that basically allows taking pictures of anything that's directly visible from a public location. I.e. buildings on a road, even sculptures. Now I don't know the status of Stonehenge, maybe it's not considered a public location for some reason?

But I doubt it is really covered by/copyright/ of all things, since it's n

I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is

The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.

Various case law in some jurisdictions (eg, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile Productions 1998 in the US) seem to allow companies to protect their building's images as trademarks even though the building is visible from public land.
So I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss English Heritage's claim as "unthinkable and ridiculous". (Or at least, it might be "ridiculous" to us on Slashdot, but they might still win.)
It'll be interesting to watch anyway.

The Act seems to apply to this case exactly. I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent. I would imagine they're trying to facilitate English Heritage becoming more financially independent - 2008 they received 132mil [english-heritage.org.uk] from the government which was 2/3 of their operating budget. I suppose todays announcement [bbc.co.uk] that Culture, Media and Sport is taking a 24% cut over the next few years has them rather spooked.

That being said, why doesn't it make sense that they want to control the commercial exploitation of their properties? The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment? As long as they aren't charging then it seems English Heritage doesn't mind - seems fair.

That being said, why doesn't it make sense that they want to control the commercial exploitation of their properties? The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?

Because what's being "exploited" are photos, which are in no way, shape, or form their property.

I mean, I pay a fair bit to maintain my car as well, but that doesn't give me any control over the "exploitation" of third-party photos of it.

I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

That's what you'll need to read Hansard [parliament.uk] for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this [parliament.uk] is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.

As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.

The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?

Because you paid an entrance fee to visit this site, and you're also paying to maintain the site via taxes, so why should you pay even more? Will I now have to pay the government every time I take a picture of a road? I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous.

I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is

The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.

May I argue that, before exploiting any intellectual property, they need to prove that they are the owner of that property? Then, they need to prove that the said property pertains to "intellectual property"?

(I'd continue by arguing that it would be needed a proof they actually have/manifest even a rudimentary level of intellect to be allowed to have ownership over an "intellectual property", but this would be at the same level of craziness as the very concept of "intellectual property").

And doesn't say anything about giving the commission the exclusive right to exploit any intellectual property.

The most obvious definition of 'exploit intellectual property' is.... they can sell post cards with a picture of the historic place featured, even if someone else took the picture, and didn't give them permission.

Hall of Fame v. Gentile was vacated by the 6th and it went no further. It did not establish any case law regarding the trademark of a structure. If you are going to throw around examples, I recommend the 6th's White Tower v. White Castle (1937) and Ferrari v. Roberts (1991), Also, the SCOTUS opinion in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992). Finally, the Lanham Act of 1946 had a narrow scope protecting marks likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers as to the source of goods or services. In 1967, the statute

I thought copyright lasts some hundred years or so after death of last of creators, so Stonehenge's copyright should have expired about 4000 years ago. Which/whose intellectual property is being protected now?...or is it just that Stonehenge is a modern-made ruse, and the copyright is still valid?

This isn't about copyright. If it were, these letters would have nothing to support them, since a) the copyright on Stonehenge has expired and b) the plain view doctrine (for at least some of the photos).However, it turns out that there is a special law in Britain that grants English Heritage all rights to all intellectual property somehow derived from archaeological monuments (search for National Heritage Act 2002). Since the UK's constitution is a rather jumbled up and all in all pretty toothless mess, th

stop trying to fight irratonale of these patent & copyright thingies on their own ground. they are legalese. legalese, can be changed to fit any private interest's needs.

you argue prior art today, and win, some other bunch of lawyers will argue something else the other day, and go around your argument. if not, private interests will finance a new law, and will totally undo whatever defense you were using to defend the rational approach.

The Syndey Opera House Trust tries to pull the same crap, even though they are directly contradicted by Australian law on photography in public places. Seems to me that England also has a law that you can shoot any photograph you want in public, although the police there often do their best to ignore it when they are misbehaving otherwise. I would think that the Stonehenge people don't really have a case and are trying to get away with threats and bluster.

I am something of an ancient monument myself now, and I do notice that the young take lots of admiring pictures of me when I am out and about, doubtless to show their friends this extraordinary old thing they have seen at Tesco. So I look forward to taking ownership of these photos and selling them back for a small fee to defray my ever growing wine bill, and maybe be able to shop in a better class of store one of these days....

Dear Sir/Madam,
We will gladly remove the photographs of Stonehenge that you have asked us to remove. However, we require that you provide us with written, notarized documentation detailing:
1. Ownership or controlling interest in Stonehenge by your organization,
2. Transfer of ownership to your organization by the original creator(s) of the work,
and,
3. That the work was, in fact, created by those that transferred ownership to your organization.
Additionally, we would like to take this letter as an opportunity to inform you that we have awarded your organization with lifetime membership in our "Good Luck With That" club, which is an exclusive organization of groups displaying exceptional confidence in their legal endeavors.
Sincerely,
Howard, Fine, and Howard
Attorneys-At-Law

... that Irish Stew is property of Ireland Heritage. Any pictures of a bowl of Irish Stew belong to Ireland Heritage. People distributing recipes for Irish Stew are in violation. Private folks are allowed to make Irish Stew at home, provided that they pay the appropriate Irish Stew license fees to Irish Heritage.

A working group at Irish Heritage is now finalizing a similar policy for "The Humble Spud."

Or maybe it will go the other way round and English Heritage will start taking all the money from collection boxes in St Pauls Cathedral, York Minster, etc - but once a year 'allow Christians "special access" for a religious ceremony.

Not entirely accurate - there was a spat between the band and the local council at the Glastonbury festival a few years back because the council were concerned that Stonehenge was more associated with Spinal Tap than it was with Stonehenge. In the end (as pointed out above) it was settled on the grounds that Spinal Tap's copyright is still in force while Stonehenge's had run out years ago.

The irony is that the emerging markets are the ones who pay least notice to the West's IP, meanwhile we think the best way to regenerate our economies is by stifling innovation and dragging everyone through the courts for every supposed infringement. And the bigger irony is that, once the companies behind the ever more insane IP laws have milked every drop from the average guy in the street, they won't hang around to prop up an ailing economy in a country going down the tubes, they'll up sticks and move the